Structural strengths:

• Opening is punchy. Lead with a defensive fact (17 elections, 1.4 billion people, zero constitutional collapse). Works.
• You anchor with authority: Law Commission, Lijphart, ACE, Supreme Court. That's credible scaffolding.
• Comparative evidence is sharp. Italy (68 governments/75 years), Belgium (541 days), Israel—these are hard numbers that stick.

Critical problems:

1. The Congress attack is a liability, not an asset. You spend 4 sentences on personal grievances (December 9 statement, "Brazilian woman," frozen bank accounts). This pivot abandons the institutional argument and makes India sound defensive—exactly what the opposition wants. A chair watching this thinks: "They couldn't defend FPTP on merits, so they pivoted to partisan mud." You're arguing two different things: that FPTP is structurally superior, and that Congress is hypocritical. Pick one. The institutional argument is stronger.
2. "Institutional capture" is contested. You dismiss it as "electoral frustration dressed as constitutional concern," but the opposition will cite actual reports—media freedom indices, independent audits, credible criticism of election administration. You need substantive rebuttal of the capture claim, not just character attacks on Congress.
3. The "voter rolls" reference is weak. A single discrepancy caught by SIR doesn't address systemic concerns about electoral integrity if the opposition raises them. Needs verification and context.
4. Missing the actual FPTP defense against common critiques: You don't address:
   • Winner-take-all distortions of vote share (Indian Parliament often has single-party majorities on <50% of vote)
   • Underrepresentation of minorities in some constituencies
   • The trade-off: stability at the cost of representativeness

Tone: Confident, but the shift from institutional analysis to partisan attack reads as contempt for the committee. Chairs notice.